Keith Fulton & Sons, Inc. v. New England Teamsters & Trucking Industry Pension Fund, Inc.’s Empirical Analysis
762 F.2d 1137 · 1985
Citation profile
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
How this case has been cited
Cited by 33 later decisions (2 by the Supreme Court) — most recently March 2025 · most notably Concrete Pipe & Products of Cal., Inc. v. Construction Laborers Pension Trust for Southern Cal. (1993), Connolly v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (1986)
10 federal appellate · 6 district · 2 state decisions
Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.
Relationships
Applies 29 U.S.C. § 1001 (§ 2 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1001A · 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (§ 3 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1104 (§ 404 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1109 (§ 409 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1363 (§ 4063 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1381 (§ 4201 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974) · 29 U.S.C. § 1391 (§ 4211 of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974)
Relies on Mathews v. Eldridge · Morrissey v. Brewer · Welch v. Helvering · Stanley v. Illinois · Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc.
Most-quoted passages
The sentences later courts lift from this opinion, ranked by how many decisions quote each — the parts of the opinion doing the work. These counts are smaller than the citation total above because most of the 33 citing decisions cite the case generally; a passage count includes only decisions quoting that exact language verbatim.
“(3)(A) For purposes of any proceeding under this section, any determination made by a plan sponsor under sections 1381 through 1399 of this title ... is presumed to be correct unless the party contesting the determination shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the determination was unreasonable or clearly erroneous.”
3 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority“[H]e finds himself, without possibility of relief, in a boxing ring from which he had been told he might be exempt, the prize being his own money, in an uneven match, but assured by the referee that he would see to it that it was a fair fight. Although not put in exactly those terms, the justification offered for this is that it was his own fault for associating with people like that, and his opponent needs the money.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the dissent“ensure the enforceability of employer liability. In the absence of these presumptions, employers could effectively nullify their obligation by refusing to pay and forcing the plan sponsor to prove every element involved in making an actuarial determination.”
2 later decisions quote this exact passage · from the majority
How this case has been treated — in progress
Whether each later court followed, distinguished, criticized, or overruled this decision. The treatment classification (task #35) runs highest-cited cases first and lights up here as it reaches this one.